Commercial Development

[Daniel Berlin]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Joe Buck wrote:

> 
> > > Nolo Press has won several court cases overturning many restrictions on
> > > giving legal advice as first amendment violations.  
> > 
> > Actually, they lost.
> 
> This is not a correct interpretation of what happened.

Yes, actually, it is.

The supreme court dismissed their petition for declaratory 
judgment.
Previously, they had lost at the district court level.
Nowhere, have they won a *case*.
There is no *precedent* that has been set that will be used by a future 
court.

Please feel free to point out the case they won.
I already searched lexis-nexis/westlaw, and can only find them losing, and 
the supreme court dismissing the case.

No precedent == you lost.
It's like winning and getting damages of $1, without attorney's fees.
It may help *your particular case* but means absolutely nothing in terms 
of future cases.
> 
> > What happened, as i said, is that a law was passed saying it's okay to 
> > produce products like they did, as long as they state it's not a 
> > substitute for an attorney.
> 
> And this was done in order to avoid getting the whole concept (of the
> lawyer's guild protection society) tossed by higher courts.

Sorry, this is simply wrong.
High courts are going to avoid tossing it at all costs, unless it's 
completely non-salvagable.

They are much more likely to find a way to say that the rule doesn't 
apply in the case.

And anyway, the high courts *approve of this*.

*Especially* the texas law.

The US Supreme Court denied certiaori just last year on a case involving 
1st am. issues and the UPL.

About the only thing they've ever struck down in relation to the UPL 
statutes was a blanket prohibition on lawyer advertising. They said they 
could prohibit unlawful advertising, but not all advertising.

Please stop pretending that courts grant 1st am. protections to 
all speech, or would if given the chance.

It's not just lawyers, it's illegal for non-licensed doctors to give 
medical advice in some states (missouri, for instance, 334.010).

These have withstood scrutiny under a variety of challenges, and the 
supreme court has either affirmed, or refused to hear (and thus, affirmed 
by doing nothing), in each case.

Anyway, this is *way* off topic.
I just *hate* misinformation.

--Dan